Counter-Archives: Peasant Autobiographical Writing form Tsarist Russia to the Soviet Union

暴力、幼稚和沉默--在1861年农奴制被废除后，这种对俄罗斯农民的传统描述不再准确。农民成为流动社会的象征。在自传和日记中，农民讲述了他们作为奴隶、自学者和宗教空想家的生活，赢得了readership.thatJoundin.theseJextsnot.onlv-the.supposedly-^»authentic«农民的支持，但也是社会的另类模式。尤其是反独裁的公关人员，开始把农民当作自传体文本的作者，把他们当作思考和行动的个体。对他们来说，这些文本代表了反档案，他们希望用这些档案来断言他们对俄罗斯帝国的看法。在农奴制废除之前，收集和出版关于农民人生历程的故事是不可能的；然而，现在，这些故事成了辩论关于政治和社会秩序的概念和社会不平等问题的流行手段。根据300篇自传文本，1展示了从预先确定的角色中解脱出来如何塑造农民的自我呈现，他们能够利用比以前更广泛的可能性来写他们自己。我的研究包括四个部分。第一章侧重于关于自传体写作处理的历史学和档案学实践。在俄罗斯历史学术中，自传作者并不主要被认为是关于自己生活的权威。相反，历史学家在他们身上看到了一个因审查制度和关闭的档案而无法进入的过去。被归因于自传体文本的宗教特征不仅决定了它们被阅读和解释的方式，也决定了它们被存档和传播的方式。在我的第二部分研究中，重点转向文本的创作。1展示三个社交空间--报刊和媒体、学者发起的自传体项目和家庭圈--农民男女在其中记录他们的生活。这项研究的目标是确定这三个领域的边界。不可能在任何地方或以同样的方式以农民的身份写作。为了谈论自己并与文本一起保存，必须呈现某些经历，并使用适当的自我描述形式来建立与集体身份的联系，集体身份代表了一种特定的社会秩序概念。我认为我的研究的主要贡献是能够表明，在1861年之后，可以构思和谈论的社会秩序概念在俄罗斯帝国变得更加不稳定。被边缘化的群体也对这些变化作出反应，试图通过写作和收集农民自传体作品在社会领域找到新的位置。在20世纪30年代，社会秩序的观念再次得到巩固。特别是在公共领域，批评社会的文章不再有任何受众。集体化扼杀了农民的自主性，随之而来的是讲述自己生活的机会。

Violent, naive, and silent - after serfdom was abolished in 1861 this traditional characterization ofthe Russian peasant was no longer accurate. The peasant became the symbol of a society in flux.In autobiographies and diaries peasants told of their lives as slaves, autodidacts and religiousvisionaries and won over a readership.thatJoundin.theseJextsnot.onlv-the.supposedly-^»authentic« peasants, but also alternative models of society. Anti-autocratic publicists, in particular,began to turn to peasants as writers of autobiographical texts and as thinking and actingindividuals. For them these texts represented counter-archives with which they hoped to asserttheir views about the Russian empire. Before the abolition of serfdom, collecting and publishing thestories of peasants' life journeys had been impossible; now, however, they became a popularmeans of debating notions about the political and social order and questions of social inequality.On the basis of 300 autobiographical texts, 1 show how being released from their pre-determinedroles shaped the self-presentation of the peasants, who were able to draw upon a larger spectrumof possibilities than previously available when writing about themselves.My study consists of four parts. The first chapter focuses on historiographical and archivalpractices regarding the treatment of autobiographical writing. In Russian historical scholarshipautobiographers weren't thought of primarily as authorities about their own lives. Rather, historianssaw in them »witnesses« of a past made inaccessible by censorship and closed archives. Thistestimonial character which was attributed to the autobiographical texts not only shaped how theywere read and interpreted, but also determined how they were archived and transmitted. In thesecond part of my study the emphasis turns to the creation ofthe texts. 1 present three socialspaces - the press and the media, autobiographical projects initiated by scholars, and the familycircle - in which peasant men and women recorded their lives. The goal of the study was todetermine the boundaries of these three realms. It was not possible to write as a »peasant«everywhere or in the same manner. In order to talk about oneself and to be preserved along withone's text, certain experiences had to be presented and the appropriate forms of self-descriptionhad to be used to establish a connection with collective identities which represented a specificnotion of social order.I see the primary contribution of my study as being able to show that the notions of social orderwhich could be conceived of and spoken about became more fluid in the Russian Empire after1861. Marginalized groups also reacted to these changes, attempting to find a new position in thesocial sphere by writing and collecting peasant autobiographical writing. In the 1930s notions ofsocial order solidified once again. Particularly in the public sphere there was no longer anyaudience for writing that was critical of society. Collectivization stifled peasant autonomy, and withit the opportunity to narrate one's own life.